2006 (12) TMI 500 - SC - Indian Laws

Is the material in newspaper really harmful for the minors? Whether the minors have got any independent right enforceable under Article 32 of the Constitution?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Harmfulness of newspaper content for minors.
2. Independent rights of minors under Article 32 of the Constitution.
3. Maintainability of the petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Harmfulness of Newspaper Content for Minors:
The petitioner argued that certain materials in newspapers, though not legally obscene, could corrupt the minds of minors due to their physical and mental immaturity. The petitioner cited examples of double-meaning jokes and explicit content that could negatively impact minors. The petitioner emphasized that the discretion to expose minors to such content should rest with parents, guardians, or experts in sex education. The petitioner clarified that the objective was not to impose censorship but to regulate the exposure of minors to such content.

2. Independent Rights of Minors Under Article 32 of the Constitution:
The petitioner contended that minors have enforceable rights under Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and Article 39(f) of the Constitution, as well as under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The petitioner cited previous judgments to support the claim that the welfare of children is of paramount importance in a civilized society. The petitioner argued that the state has failed in its duty to protect minors from inappropriate content and that the Press Council of India lacks the necessary powers to enforce standards effectively.

3. Maintainability of the Petition:
The Court examined whether the writ petition was maintainable. It was argued that existing laws, such as the Indian Penal Code and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, already provide sufficient safeguards against obscene content. The Court also noted that the Press Council of India has limited authority and lacks punitive powers. The Court concluded that the petition was not maintainable as sufficient legal frameworks already exist to address the issue.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish a need to curtail the freedom of speech and expression. The Court emphasized that any steps to ban certain content would fetter the independence of the free press. The Court also observed that a culture of "responsible reading" should be inculcated among readers and that news items should not be viewed in isolation. The Court recommended that the Government of India consider amending the Press Council Act to empower the Press Council with punitive powers.